Become a Fan

August 06, 2008

Gap between haves and have nots and Vet Care

Doolittler had an interesting post earlier this week on how much money we spend on our tests. Her post focuses on a study published in the Journal of Veterinary Medical Association regarding a growing number of people who do not take their pet a vet annually, if ever.

It's an interesting topic --and the stats quoted in her article certainly resemble numbers from the AVMA Census. In 2006 (from the census data), Americans made 119 milion visits to the vet's office and spent $16.1 billion doing it.? This is up from $7 billion spent in 1996.

While part of the huge increase is due to a larger percentage of households being pet owners, the costs of veterinary care have risen. In 1996 the average pet-owning household spent $187 on vet care. In 2006, the average was nearly double that at $356. 22% of households spent $500 or more last year on vet care (vs 8.3% in 1996).

The amazing difference is that 22% of people didn't spend a dime on vet care last year (27.6% of African Americans didn't spend money on vet care last year), up from 17% 10 years earlier. While certainly there are some other factors that could be at play here, (with 3 year vaccinations now being the norm people don't necessarily have to go in every year), it appears that the rising costs of vet care is certainly having a negative affect on lower economic classes.

But I want to tie this back into how we think about legislation, and particularly mandatory spay/neuter ordinances, high licensing rates, etc. It seems to be common thinking, when you look at what is going on in Chicago and in California, that if we make it mandatory for people to spay and neuter their pets, it will automatically happen and we will decrease the pet population and thus our euthanasia rates.

What we're ignoring in this process is that there is a large (22%), and growing, segment of the population are not getting any vet care services right now - and a large percentage of these people aren't getting vet service because they can't afford it. Mandating it does not solve this problem. This is why case studies like in New Hampshire, Calgary,Berkeley and other places have shown that providing free and low cost services are much better ways to solve the spay/neuter program than making it mandatory.

These programs serve an additional purpose also. Many times vets are the ones that are the first to notice animals that are improperly cared for -- dogs that are not treated well, left on chains 24/7, have behavioral issues that may become dangerous, etc -- and can provide tips for owners to fix problems in the early stages, before they become major problems. Without this contact with an animal expert, many of these problems persist until the dog develops major problems due to improper training/care. This is one reason (but not the only one) that many neighborhoods that have a high number of low-income families (with likely unvetted dogs) have more instances of aggressive dogs than other neighborhoods. If you've ever had a dog with an ear infection you know first hand...

Creating these points of contact -- and opportunities to educate -- are critical if we're going to solve some of the problems in many of our nation's cities. Most of this can be done through low-cost voluntary programs vs mandatory ones, which haven't solved one of the major reasons people don't take care of their vetting needs...money.

It's time we reconize the truly effective solutions and start helping, instead of trying to rule the "problem" with an iron fist. More sugar. Less vinegar.

Comments

Hi Brent:
The facts you mention are exactly why here in Bay County Florida(where my current gig is as Director of Animal Control)I set up a free vaccine clinic for residents. In one day we vaccinated over a thousand (yes, +1000)dogs and cats, many of which had NEVER BEEN VACCINATED. We have to get the word out that, even though we spend a little, the benefits are, as the commercial says, PRICELESS.
And yes, I want to be Bill Bruce of Calgary when I grow up!

By providing spay\nueter at no cost in low-income areas, the volunteers with The Montana Spay Neuter Task Force (mtspayneutertaskforce.org) report an average drop in bite reports of 33% and shelter intake of 19% in areas all across Montana over their 10 year history. From 40% to 75% of the people attending these events say they have _never_ spayed or neutered a pet, yet this model motivates them to attend. Since owners are encouraged to work in the event, vets, assistants, and volunteers all have the opportunity to educate them. The cost is a fraction of what many cities spend on animal control. That is a better success rate than any ordinance-based approach I can find. Cheaper as well

Community Pets was started to see if the model can be replicated in Eastern Washington. You can contact the MTSNTF and see if their model could work for you...

Respectfully, smoke and fire are two different issues as well, but they are interrelated.

When male dogs are castrated there is a distinct and measureable decrease in behaviors that lead to biting - such as roaming, packing up, general aggressiveness, etc.

Your point two is very likely, because part of the focus of the event is veterinarians and volunteers "evangelizing" to the pet owners about how important their pets are, how much more valuable they are now, how they can take care of them. Participants do value them more and probably pay more attention to them.

I can find no evidence (though the Task Force might be able to tell you) that there was any increased enforcement in any of these locations by animal control. Some don't even have animal control, per se.

The removal of 20% of the unwanted litters from a population might also lead to some of this - unwanted dogs obviously don't get as much attention, which can lead to problem behaviors.

Since most dog bites occur in or around a home - less frequently from homeless dogs or strays, it is quite likely that it was a combination of loss of testosterone and the owners newfound attitude toward the dogs and their neighbors.